Star Citizen 3.0 - Refusing Refunds

Comments

They are claiming that the requests are
outside of the statutory refund period but according to UK and EU law
the statutory period is 30 days, and that timeframe starts once the
product has been delivered in a manner that it can be used by the
customer. This applies to digital goods including in-game items.>>>>

I am not a lawyer.

My personal opinion: i am not sure if a crowdfunding pledge falls under the UK/EU law you mentioned above. If this counts as a sale of a digital good, to which this law applies.

I suspect this is a grey area which has not been fully defined yet. Lawmakers seems to be unsure about crowdfunding projects and how to treat them legally (at least here in Austria). There is a lot of debate here in Austria, because a private person essentially had a banking business based on a crowdfunding idea ... with great success i might add ... until he was stopped by an injunction.

So may not be as clear cut as it sounds that a 30 day statutory period applies here.

Have fun

Crowdfunding is not considered as sale. If it was, it would've been taxed. You can't get one without the other. Taxing crowdfunding monies as sale would mean the end of crowdfunding.

They are claiming that the requests are
outside of the statutory refund period but according to UK and EU law
the statutory period is 30 days, and that timeframe starts once the
product has been delivered in a manner that it can be used by the
customer. This applies to digital goods including in-game items.>>>>

I am not a lawyer.

My personal opinion: i am not sure if a crowdfunding pledge falls under the UK/EU law you mentioned above. If this counts as a sale of a digital good, to which this law applies.

I suspect this is a grey area which has not been fully defined yet. Lawmakers seems to be unsure about crowdfunding projects and how to treat them legally (at least here in Austria). There is a lot of debate here in Austria, because a private person essentially had a banking business based on a crowdfunding idea ... with great success i might add ... until he was stopped by an injunction.

So may not be as clear cut as it sounds that a 30 day statutory period applies here.

Have fun

Crowdfunding is not considered as sale. If it was, it would've been taxed. You can't get one without the other. Taxing crowdfunding monies as sale would mean the end of crowdfunding.

Thank God I refunded when I did. This game is both a) never going to release properly and b) never going to feature a fraction of what was promised. RSI is a total fucking scam, they're even feeding a sized media team with your backer dollars.

Why doesn't make it so?After kickstarter it is CIG who are making pledges not the customer. They are the ones saying "Give us $400 now and we promise to deliver the Carrack some time in the future."A customer cannot make a pledge if they are fulfilling their end of the bargain straight away.

The TOS doesn't really mean much though, they can write whatever they want but if it attempts to break consumer law then it has no bearing. It's more of a scare tactic than anything. Obviously companies rely on people not being able to take them to court over such things.

This x10 lol. I've said it before but the TOS is worth less then the virtual paper it's written on. No TOS can override someone's consumer protection laws so it's really all there to try and dissuade someone from trying to get their money back but CIG knows if anyone pushes back there isn't a whole lot they can do

Always something to piss and moan about. Why would anyone want a refund now when the biggest and most important update of the game is almost in the public's hands? Crying about refunds after at least trying it makes more sense and frankly, would be a relief to see them go too...win/win for all of us!

With the push of 3.0 to evocatis it appears CIG have taken the stance of denying people refunds, up until now they have been pretty decent with granting refunds to those not satisfied with the progress of the project, the direction of it or whatever.

They are claiming that the requests are outside of the statutory refund period but according to UK and EU law the statutory period is 30 days, and that timeframe starts once the product has been delivered in a manner that it can be used by the customer. This applies to digital goods including in-game items.

I'm curious what may have prompted this CS change when it clearly flouts what is required of them in the UK and EU (perhaps AUS as well).

The actual response in question:

Thank you for your patience with this request.

As the activity on this account is outside of the statutory refund timeframe (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/tos
Section VII, Fundraising & Pledges), it takes us time to look into
its details. In addition to this, the whole team has been hard at work
supporting the release of Star Citizen Alpha 3.0 to the Evocati Test
Flight group with positive feedback.

Since Thursday October 5th, we’ve released frequent follow-on version
updates to 3.0 in the test environment. This fast turnaround and more
frequent publishing schedule is made possible by our new Delta Patcher
and a number of changes to our back-end server technology. These
back-end systems are in full production now for the Alpha development
phase, while the 3.0 game version itself will continue to be polished
over the coming weeks. (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report)

Since the beginning of the project, development of the Game has
proceeded unabated and RSI is delivering content on a continuing basis.
RSI has applied your pledges to the development cost of the Game, and in
accordance with the Terms of Service, to which you expressly agreed,
you are no longer entitled to a refund. These terms are consistent with
the specific nature of crowdfunding. (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/tos)

We consider each request on a case by case basis and will work with
you to find the best solution. Given the focus on the release of Star
Citizen Alpha 3.0 right now, it will be a few weeks before we can give
this request the detailed attention it requires.

A very strange response in itself to be honest.

I just did a charge back with my bank and when they contacted me to follow up on my claim i just pointed out the constant delays and push backs and they promptly charged back what i pledged.

Why doesn't make it so?After kickstarter it is CIG who are making pledges not the customer. They are the ones saying "Give us $400 now and we promise to deliver the Carrack some time in the future."A customer cannot make a pledge if they are fulfilling their end of the bargain straight away.

The TOS doesn't really mean much though, they can write whatever they want but if it attempts to break consumer law then it has no bearing. It's more of a scare tactic than anything. Obviously companies rely on people not being able to take them to court over such things.

I think it does or they would be having legal battles left, right and center. It's been 5 or 6 years now.

Steam says you have to play less than a few hours or can't return it, so i'm guessing there must be a min and max before it's considered illegal? I don't know i'm not a law master lol

Why doesn't make it so?After kickstarter it is CIG who are making pledges not the customer. They are the ones saying "Give us $400 now and we promise to deliver the Carrack some time in the future."A customer cannot make a pledge if they are fulfilling their end of the bargain straight away.

The TOS doesn't really mean much though, they can write whatever they want but if it attempts to break consumer law then it has no bearing. It's more of a scare tactic than anything. Obviously companies rely on people not being able to take them to court over such things.

I think it does or they would be having legal battles left, right and center. It's been 5 or 6 years now.

Steam says you have to play less than a few hours or can't return it, so i'm guessing there must be a min and max before it's considered illegal? I don't know i'm not a law master lol

I'm not convinced, but it's clearly a convoluted situation.

As you say, Steam allows refunds before X number of hours played but you are getting the product and you can make your decision based on what you receive. CIG appear to be refusing refunds despite not having delivered the product (to the people they are denying). That strikes me as really odd.

I've helped several people on Reddit with this process, so I thought I'd formalise it into an advice post where people can publicly ask questions and see answers. It's more necessary now than ever since CIG has started stalling on refunds due to MVP 3.0.

The arbitration clause of the Terms Of Service is only valid in the US, it's completely worthless under EU law. Anyone worldwide can sue CIG in the EU because they have a registered company in the EU (UK) - Foundry 42 Limited.

I guarantee you'll hear back from CIG within 24 hours, and they'll offer you a full refund. It's massive hassle for businesses to get these kinds of legal claims against them because you can ask bailiffs to raid their offices in the UK, so they'll always respond quickly and just pay what you ask for. If they don't respond you automatically win and get the money either way.

If you need any help with this process just PM me, I've done it several times now and helped other people on Reddit with it for various businesses as well.

Take the time to file a complaint against Foundry 42 with Trading Standards. This is a UK government organisation managed on the local council level that has the power to shut down companies, remove directors, ban people from ever being directors in the EU again, and forcibly issue refunds by raiding bank accounts.

Trading standards don't move very fast, but you have absolutely nothing to lose by filing a complaint with them and it just ramps up the pressure on CIG even more, and moves to get your case resolved just that little bit faster.

Finally file a complaint against CIG with the Better Business Bureau in the US, even if you don't live in the US. There's nothing legally binding about the BBB but all complaints are publicly visible on the BBB website and it's very embarrassing for CIG. Make sure you talk about your legal complaint there. It puts CIG's bad behaviour in the public record for journalists to see, and potentially saves other victims from giving them money. It also makes your case more urgent for them to resolve, as they can publicly reply to your complaint on the BBB for all to see.

They are claiming that the requests are
outside of the statutory refund period but according to UK and EU law
the statutory period is 30 days, and that timeframe starts once the
product has been delivered in a manner that it can be used by the
customer. This applies to digital goods including in-game items.>>>>

I am not a lawyer.

My personal opinion: i am not sure if a crowdfunding pledge falls under the UK/EU law you mentioned above. If this counts as a sale of a digital good, to which this law applies.

I suspect this is a grey area which has not been fully defined yet. Lawmakers seems to be unsure about crowdfunding projects and how to treat them legally (at least here in Austria). There is a lot of debate here in Austria, because a private person essentially had a banking business based on a crowdfunding idea ... with great success i might add ... until he was stopped by an injunction.

So may not be as clear cut as it sounds that a 30 day statutory period applies here.

Have fun

Crowdfunding is not considered as sale. If it was, it would've been taxed. You can't get one without the other. Taxing crowdfunding monies as sale would mean the end of crowdfunding.

Ive been taxed every time ive paid CIG in the UK at 20% VAT, as has every one else since the UK tax authorities enforced this on all digital purchases.

Personally, I dont understand how a company with as much money as CIG is "supposed" to have has an issue giving someone a refund. It does not say in the OP but how much money this person put in? A whopping $45? Maybe $125? Are they really getting hit with so many requests for refunds that they need to shut that facet off?

"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD

Always something to piss and moan about. Why would anyone want a refund now when the biggest and most important update of the game is almost in the public's hands? Crying about refunds after at least trying it makes more sense and frankly, would be a relief to see them go too...win/win for all of us!

I didnt piss and moan. But after Gamescom i refunded both my accounts totalling $3,300. Had them for 4+ years. Figured that after losing faith due to the lack of evidenced progress at Gamescom, if the game does get there, Ill just buy back in later.

Personally, I dont understand how a company with as much money as CIG is "supposed" to have has an issue giving someone a refund. It does not say in the OP but how much money this person put in? A whopping $45? Maybe $125? Are they really getting hit with so many requests for refunds that they need to shut that facet off?

Personally I think that CIG is playing the waiting game. CIG maybe expects some people to withdraw their refund request once these people were able to play Alpha 3.0 themselves.

With the push of 3.0 to evocatis it appears CIG have taken the stance of denying people refunds, up until now they have been pretty decent with granting refunds to those not satisfied with the progress of the project, the direction of it or whatever.

They are claiming that the requests are outside of the statutory refund period but according to UK and EU law the statutory period is 30 days, and that timeframe starts once the product has been delivered in a manner that it can be used by the customer. This applies to digital goods including in-game items.

I'm curious what may have prompted this CS change when it clearly flouts what is required of them in the UK and EU (perhaps AUS as well).

The actual response in question:

Thank you for your patience with this request.

As the activity on this account is outside of the statutory refund timeframe (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/tos
Section VII, Fundraising & Pledges), it takes us time to look into
its details. In addition to this, the whole team has been hard at work
supporting the release of Star Citizen Alpha 3.0 to the Evocati Test
Flight group with positive feedback.

Since Thursday October 5th, we’ve released frequent follow-on version
updates to 3.0 in the test environment. This fast turnaround and more
frequent publishing schedule is made possible by our new Delta Patcher
and a number of changes to our back-end server technology. These
back-end systems are in full production now for the Alpha development
phase, while the 3.0 game version itself will continue to be polished
over the coming weeks. (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report)

Since the beginning of the project, development of the Game has
proceeded unabated and RSI is delivering content on a continuing basis.
RSI has applied your pledges to the development cost of the Game, and in
accordance with the Terms of Service, to which you expressly agreed,
you are no longer entitled to a refund. These terms are consistent with
the specific nature of crowdfunding. (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/tos)

We consider each request on a case by case basis and will work with
you to find the best solution. Given the focus on the release of Star
Citizen Alpha 3.0 right now, it will be a few weeks before we can give
this request the detailed attention it requires.

A very strange response in itself to be honest.

well... they were pretty decent on my recent refund, only 2 weeks or so ago requested after Gamescom.. $3,300 returned through paypal and credit card with no difficulty.. just one email. Maybe this is a specific case, or maybe there were many refunds after Gamescom and the 3.0 release is a way of stopping it going any further. Who knows.